|
The Great Obama Vetting Disaster of 2009
Pejman Yousefzadeh, The New LedgerDuring the 2008 campaign, it seemed whenever someoneanyonedemonstrated the temerity to question whether then-Senator Obama had the executive experience to be the President of the United States, such a question would be met with a chorus of disapproval and outrage on the part of Obamaphiles. After all, reasoned the future Presidents ardent fans, the Obama campaign itself was a splendidly run operation and was a testament to Barack Obamas executive management skills. Surely, running the country would not be that much more difficult. We are reminded now that indeed it is. Verily, we are reminded that running the country is significantly more difficult than running a campaign. 2009 is the anti-2008 for Team Obama. Whereas, last year, the Obama campaign was able to demonstrate its supreme competence at running a campaign, raising money, and using technology to further Barack Obamas political goals and personal ambitions, once Team Obama moved into the White House, it seemed that its hold on managerial competence disappeared. Thus, we have a Treasury Secretary whose tax delinquencies were not discovered by the Obama vetting system, and who is Home Alone at the Treasury Department because the White House cant get its nominees confirmed quickly enough to provide the Treasury Secretary the personnel support he needs to deal with the greatest economic crisis since the recession of the early 1980s. The White Houses initial choice for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, was himself eliminated because of tax delinquencies. Because of the multiple problems with nominees running into tax problems, the responsibility for vetting over tax issues became concentrated in the White House Counsels Office . . . only to discover that White House Counsel Greg Craig has his own tax problems. Two Commerce Secretaries have been forced to withdraw their nominations. Only now is the Senate turning its attention to confirming the nomination of Ron Kirk as U.S. Trade Representative. And in the latest personnel snafu, the selection of Charles Freeman as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Counsel has been withdrawn.... The allegations against Freeman included claims that he was insensitive to the cause of Tibetan independence, having described Tibetan independence efforts as race riots. He described Israeli violence against Palestinians as the barrier to peace in the Middle East without acknowledging Palestinian violence against Israelis. Freemans stance on these issues may come as no surprise given that he was part of an institute that was funded by Saudi money and sat on the board of a Chinese state-owned oil company....consider Freemans statement in the wake of his withdrawal: The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East, [Freeman] wrote. More on Freemans statement can be found here, in which he states that his critics are clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government in this case, the government of Israel. Of course, Freeman is not the first to accuse supporters of Israelwhom many will identify simply as Jewsof having dual loyalties at best, or not being loyal to the United States at all, at worst. But Freeman had problems that went beyond his disagreements with the Israel Lobby. Senator Charles Schumer took up the fight against Freeman. Doubtless, Senator Schumer will be accused of being Jewishguilty!without Freeman defenders considering that perhaps, Freemans one-sided views on Mideast peace and Chinas interactions with dissidents might have done more than the Israel Lobby ever could have done to cause Freemans withdrawal.... I suppose that it is worth exploring why it is that Charles Freeman believes that the Tibetan dispute with heavy-handed Chinese suppression tactics constitutes nothing more than a race riot, or why he thinks that the Chinese should have killed the protesters at Tienanmen Square faster, or why he seems to turn a blind eye to the practice of terrorist tactics against the Israeli people. Those issues can be examined, though perhaps with Freemans withdrawal from public service, that examination is not so pressing as it was when he was set to serve as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. What is worth examining now is why President Obama felt the need to select a National Intelligence Council head whose views on Middle East peace are so one-sided and whose views on Chinese human rights abuses are simply devoid of any moral sensibility. Charles Freeman is praised as a foreign policy realist, but as a realist myself, it is hard for me to divine any homage to realism that is found in casually dismissing Tibetan dissidents or the pro-democracy demonstrators who were massacred at Tienanmen Square 20 years ago. Freeman is also praised as a provocateur who could have asked tough questions as the NIC Chairman, but while being a contrarian has its advantages, there is a difference between being a contrarian and being appallingly wrong on issues that could very well influence ones views as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. It was said of Barack Obama and his coterie that they were the very embodiment of competence. Now we see that the President and his White House are, in fact, exceedingly poor judges of personalities. Far too many appointment snafus have occurred to place much trust in this Presidents ability to choose responsible and inspiring public servants to people his Administration.... Posted by: Mike 2009-03-11 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=264709 |